[governance] Meanwhile back at the ranch - Was Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs

[riaz.tayob at gmail.com]

There are a number of issues with kalchevs position from my point of view.

1. No global consensus is passed off as a pure case when as far as cir goes the is an imperfect case of de facto control.
2. Saying there is no global consensus possibility unfairness the reality of choice for us seeking change... And hides the fact that certain kinds of agreements are possible... Wipo treaties, upcoming top, nafta, etc... So while the opinion of anti-multilateralism (or even any form of cooperation) may be valid, the arguments used o support this are not...
3. I wonder what you would have made of the techie single rooters arguments in this context historically...
...,...

On 12 Sep 2012, at 1:58 PM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:

> 
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
>> The problem is, Daniel, that because we havent evolved enough to have global policies, guidelines and/or structures to deal with significant issues, we are experiencing significant interference from many governments, and also from large corporations, operating unilaterally to interfere with the free flow of information without having to justify their actions or co-ordinate their actions with other affected parties.
>> 
> 
> This is all correct. However my personal opinion is that global consensus and therefore global policy is not achievable, because such is human nature.
> 
> 
>> No, the Internet was not designed to be like that.
> 
> Apparently, we look at it from different perspective. Internet is certainly designed to operate without any centralised control system. Any part of Internet can function independently from the other parts and all they can function independently from any external party. This clashes with the "government" concept, or even with the "corporate" concept that everything should be centrally managed and policed. The Internet architecture however matches very closely how human society works (i.e. peer pressure).
> 
> If we narrow our discussion to DNS only, it seems centralised. It does seem centralised, because most players prefer it this way (people are lazy). However, there are many players on Internet, that don't buy the centralised DNS concept and have for decades operated around it. There are also, other name resolution technologies in use in Internet, that do not use DNS (partially or at all). So, even DNS on Internet is not centralised, strictly speaking.
> 
> The "problem" of "governments" (of any kind, not only national) with Internet is that this beast simply cannot be framed to their model. On the other side, Internet can accommodate any "government" system ... but that happens within Internet, integrated together with other governments and behaving, not "over" it.
> 
> I also understand you read my comment in the sense "Internet means anarchy". It doesn't. It's simply the next history wave of returning to normal human interaction model. No doubt, some day, some "bright" mind, perhaps the next Emperor will figure out how to take over Internet --- or so he and his subjects will think for a while.
> 
> Since I do repeat this opinion form time to time, you might ask, what I think of "Internet Governance". Well, that would depend of what you define by "Governance" here. If it is to build an global control structure of any kind, I will always call it waste of time and resources. If it is to educate those who think the world depends on their wishes (almost any human being falls here), then I am all for it -- people simply have no clue what Internet is and it will be more beneficial for everybody if they learn what they can't do to/with Internet. That will result in much less resources and time wasted. I do remember the statements from several representatives from Africa, during the IGF in Athens: "For the money you all spend here, you could rather provide stable electricity to one of our countries, and then we can talk about Internet" (I know, that's not enough, of course)
> 
> Daniel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120912/4418bb5f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t